Incorporating Dogme ELT in the Classroom (Handout Version)

Incorporating Dogme ELT in the Classroom2012 IATEFL Glasgow

Martin SketchleyTwitter: @ELTExperiences • British Council Romania • 23 March 2011

Martin Sketchley • email: [email protected] • www.eltexperiences.com

LTC Eastbourne: Dogme ELT Workshop

Friday 30th September

13:30 – 14:30 Library

http://www.eltexperiences.com


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Introduction to Dogme ELT! 3

Dogme ELT: Background Information 3

Conversation driven 4

Communicative Language Teaching 5

Task-Based Learning 6

Scaffolding Language 9

Materials Light 10

Learner-Based Teaching 11

Emergent Language 13

Lesson Ideas ! 14

Lesson Idea 1: Why are they so Tired? 15

Lesson Idea 2: An Accident Waiting to Happen 16

Lesson Idea 3: What’s Your Mobile Phone? 17

Lesson Idea 4: What Happened Next? 18

Lesson Idea 5: Most Memorable Holiday 19

Dogme ELT in the Classroom! 20

Conclusion of Dogme ELT 20

Applications & Implications for English Language Teaching 21

Further Reading! 23

1

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the teachers and students that participated in my actioned based

research that focuses on Dogme ELT. Further thanks go to Chia Suan Chong, Chiew Pang,

Sue Annan, as well as many others that I have failed to mention for the pictures that were used

in this handout. Further information (including a full copy) regarding the research can be

accessed via my website.

2

Introduction to Dogme ELTFor newly certified EFL teachers, the extensive range of methods, approaches and techniques available can be quite overwhelming. The chapter looks at the background of Dogme ELT, its relationship with other traditional and more modern approaches and methods of language teaching.

Dogme ELT: Background Information

Dogme ELT was initially coined by Scott Thornbury, as a consequence of a group of

Danish film makers deciding to cleanse any film production from unnecessary

artificiality (fittingly termed Dogme 95) during the 1990s. Thornbury (2000) noted

that with Dogme 95, any filming “must be done on location” (Von Trier & Vinterberg

2005 p.88) with relevant props only suitable if they are located where the filming is

taking place. Thornbury related the principles of Dogme 95 to the teaching of English

as a Foreign Language (henceforth EFL), reflecting that teaching should be

accomplished “using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the

classroom … and whatever happens to be in the classroom” (Thornbury 2000 p.2)

with the expectation of a room containing chairs, a board, a teacher and some students.

Furthermore, Thornbury (2000) stated that ‘imported methods’, such as the Silent

Way, Natural Approach or Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT),

should not interfere with “the free flow of participant-driven input, output and

feedback” (ibid p.2). As there has been very little published on Dogme ELT (per se)

and is regarded as a relatively new concept of teaching, the literature review will focus

Martin Sketchley (www.eltexperiences.com) IATEFL Glasgow 2012 3



on the three key tenets of teaching unplugged and its relation to SLA theory and

teaching methodology.

Conversation driven

The most important tenet of Dogme ELT, proposed by Meddings & Thornbury (2009),

is that the classroom should focus on a ‘conversation driven’ principle. Nonetheless,

what is meant by the term ‘conversation’? Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

(2008) defines ‘conversation’ as the “talk between two or more people in which

thoughts, feelings and ideas are expressed, questions are asked and answered, or news

and information are exchanged” (ibid p.306). Conversation is also described by

Thornbury & Slade (2006) as “the kind of speech that happens informally,

symmetrically and for the purposes of establishing and maintaining social ties” (ibid p.

25). It is interesting to note that there is an association of informality related to the

term ‘conversation’, as the most important tenet of Dogme ELT requires the

incorporation and practice of a ‘conversation driven’ attitude. Naturally, one would

question the suitability of incorporating ‘conversation’ within the classroom due to its

‘informal’ association. Nevertheless, Farrington (1981) noted that a ‘conversation

class’ would be more popular among intermediate to advanced levels of adult students

(ibid p.241). Due to Farrington’s observation, this raises the question whether the

conversation driven element of Dogme ELT is suitable for only students which have

the language ability of intermediate or above. Farrington (1981) also observed that

any form of unplanned conversation would encourage particular students to speak with

other remaining learners bored, shy or irritated (ibid p.241). However, the principle of

a ‘conversation driven’ approach within Dogme ELT emphasises that:

1. Conversation is language at work.

2. Conversation is discourse.

3. Conversation is interactive, dialogic and communicative.

4. Conversation scaffolds learning.

5. Conversation promotes socialisation.

(Meddings & Thornbury 2009 p.8)




The origins of teaching ‘interactive, dialogic and communicative’ conversation,

through “language functions and communication” (Hall 2011 p.93), was initially

introduced with the use of Communicative Language Teaching.

Communicative Language Teaching

CLT originated during the 1960s and 1970s in response to Situational Language

Teaching (henceforth SLT), whereby SLT “was taught by practicing basic structures in

meaningful situation-based activities” (Richards & Rodgers 2001 p.153). It has been

noted that the communicative approach to language teaching can mean “many

different things to different people” (Savignon & Berns 1983 p.2) with the adoption of

various materials, approaches and styles of teaching (ibid). Furthermore, the

perception of ambiguity within CLT, whereby it means “a multitude of different things

to different people” (Harmer 2003 p.289), causes teachers to misunderstand or

misapply CLT within the classroom (Scrivener 2011 p.31). Nonetheless, CLT “makes

use of real-life situations that necessitate communication” (CAL, 1993) with teachers

preparing activities that learners are likely to encounter outside the classroom.

However, the incorporation of authentic materials, with anticipated ‘real-life’

encounters, within the classroom is not without contention. Swan (1985b) proposes

that authenticity provides learners the opportunity to have “a taste of ‘real’ language in

use” (p.85) whilst Tennant (2011) regard the use of authentic materials, which have

been imported into the classroom away from their original context, could lose their

authenticity (ibid p.13). Nonetheless, Sayer (2005) noted that with CLT, students are

“guided through the conversations aided by the use of role cards, diagramming, or

other types of prompts” (ibid pg.14), with the objective to prompt learners to improve

their communicative skills. Furthermore, Sayer (2005) also observed that once

learners’ levels improve, students require less prompting and are able to communicate

more effectively. CLT also “refers to both processes and goals in classroom

learning” (Savignon 2002 p.1) with a primary aim of ‘communicative

competence’ (ibid). ‘Communicative competence’ was first referred to by

sociolinguistics (Hymes 1971 in Savignon 2002) and is regarded as “the ability to

make language relevant to the context and … sustain the context through




language” (Duranti 2001 p.39). Sociolinguistics considers “language use in

communication is central to the linguistic process and to development” (Owens 2008

p.45). It is important to note that a “communicative movement in ELT encompasses

all modes of language use” (Hedge 2000 p.45), either spoken or written English, with

CLT incorporating either of these productive skills. However, the aim of teaching

CLT is to focus on ‘real-life’ language (Hall 2011 p.93) with the use of materials and

prompting. Interestingly, Richards & Rodgers (2001) noted that a communicative

teaching approach could incorporate elements of task-based material if “activities have

been prepared to support Communicative Language Teaching classes” (ibid p.169).

Task-Based Learning

The first point of a ‘conversation driven’ principle is considered by Meddings &

Thornbury (2009) that conversation is ‘language at work’ which attempts to focus on

the naturalistic attitude to language acquisition, such as “a ‘fluency-first’

approach” (ibid p.9). Task-based learning (henceforth TBL), also recognised as task-

based teaching or task-based instruction, “refers to an approach based on the use of

tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language teaching” (Richards &

Rodgers 2001 p.223). TBL ensures learners focus on completing a task or problem,

rather than focus on the structure of language (Harmer 2007 p.71). Interestingly, TBL

considers conversation and spoken communication as the primary focus of language

learning and the foundation for language acquisition (Richards & Rodgers 2001 p.228)

which respects the ‘conversation driven’ principle of Dogme ELT and also supports

the assertion from Meddings & Thornbury (2009) that a “Dogme approach shares

many of the beliefs and features of a task-based approach” (ibid p.9). Although, TBL

share similar pedagogical principles of language learning towards CLT (Richards &

Rodgers 2001 p.228), there are additional principles which are considered important

for TBL. As Richards & Rodgers (2001) highlight, these additional principles for

TBL include the observation that task-based activities provide learners both Input and

Output processing necessary for language acquisition, task achievement is intrinsically

motivating for language learners and also provides learners the opportunity to learn

specific aspects of language which have originated from particular tasks (ibid p.




228-229). Nonetheless, the definition of ‘task’ can vary among teachers yet “there is a

commonsensical understanding that a task is an activity or goal that is carried out

using language” (Richard & Rodgers 2001 p.224). The pedagogical approach for

TBL is split between three stages: ‘Pre-task’, ‘Task cycle’ as well as ‘Language

focus’ (please see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: The Willis TBL framework (adapted from Harmer 2007 p.71)

Figure 2: The continuum from focus on form to focus on meaning (Littlewood 2004 p.

322)

Willis (1996) noted that the tasks and activities incorporated within the TBL approach

promotes learner awareness of ‘language form’ which encourage language learners to

become more “conscious of particular language features” (ibid p.16) and are also

considered more beneficial than ‘form-focused’ activities. ‘Form-focused’ activities

have primarily been regarded as “uncontextualized grammar exercises, substitution

drills, and pronunciation drills” (Littlewood 2004 p.322). Littlewood (2004) also

noted that there were two dimensions in association with ‘tasks’ with one end of the

continuum which focuses on forms whilst the opposite concentrated on the focus of

meaning (ibid p.321-322). Therefore, one can note that there is a constant shift

Pre-taskIntroduction to topic and task

Task cycleTask

PlanningReport

Language focusAnalysisPractice




between the two dimensions of ‘form-focused’ and ‘meaning-focused’ activities.

Figure 2 above highlights the pedagogical implications when teachers pursue focus on

forms and focus on meaning activities.

Ellis (2000) suggested that learners which participate with form-focused ‘exercises’

are “primarily engaged in producing correct linguistic forms” (ibid p.196), while

meaning-focused ‘tasks’ are “primarily engaged in trying to communicate

content” (ibid p.196). Furthermore, when one considers the two distinctions between

‘form’ and ‘meaning’, in the communicative sense, it is closely related to aspects of

conversational learner production skills: ‘accuracy’ and ‘fluency’. The term

‘accuracy’ has been defined as “the ability of the learner to perform in accordance with

target language norms” (Ellis 2000 p.202), whereas ‘fluency’ is regarded as “the

capacity of the learner to mobilize his/her system to communicate in real time” (ibid p.

202). There is some suggestion that teachers, within the classroom, are constantly

switching between tasks that focus on fluency and accuracy (Harmer 2007 p.142-142

& Scrivener 2011 p.224-245). However, Scrivener (2011) suggests that there are some

lessons that work “on both accuracy and fluency in relatively equal measures” (ibid p.

224). Interestingly, Ellis (2000) suggests a third distinction in relation to TBL which is

regarded as communicative ‘complexity’ which is described as “the utilization of

interlanguage structures that are ‘cutting edge’, elaborate and structured” (ibid p.202).

Nonetheless, it is important to note, in relation to Dogme ELT, a ‘conversation driven’

principle should encourage focus on meaning (as demonstrated above) and the ‘tasks’

proposed in “Teaching Unplugged” (2009) are expected to develop, train and improve

a student’s overall fluency. When one considers ‘accuracy’ and ‘fluency’ within the

context of SLA theory, there is a close relationship with ‘competence’. Chomsky

primarily referred to ‘competence’ as the “abstract and hidden representation of

language knowledge” (Mitchell & Myles 2004 p.10) with a competent communicator

“able to conceive, formulate, modulate, and issue messages” (Owens Jr. 2008 p.9)

successfully. Nevertheless, the question arises how teachers are able to improve a

learner’s communicative competency in their second language.




Scaffolding Language

In respect for the first tenet of Dogme ELT, as well as the improvement of an English

learner’s language competence, which also supports the ‘conversation driven’

principle, is related to ‘scaffolding’. Ellis (1997) has described ‘scaffolding’ as the

“the process by which learners utilize discourse to help them construct structures that

lie outside their competence” (ibid p.143). From an interactional perspective,

‘scaffolding’ offers language learners the opportunity to improve relevant input and

offer instances of negotiation of meaning, conversational repair, etc. (Mitchell & Miles

2004 p.210). An interactional approach is related to pedagogical methodologies such

as a Task-Based Approach, Whole Language or Content Language Learning to name a

few (Richards & Rogers 2001 p.22). Nonetheless, ‘scaffolding’ provides language

learners the chance to improve ‘communicative competence’ through the assistance of

interaction. Interestingly, there are some preconceptions that ‘scaffolding’ occurs

between the language learner and the teacher, yet Harris (2007) suggests that language

learners can assist each other with ‘scaffolding’. However, as Harris (2007)

highlights, student-to-student ‘scaffolding’ techniques are available and require greater

learner training and awareness. Nevertheless, ‘scaffolding’ is related to sociocultural

theory of language acquisition which is considered “a collaborative process whereby

learners appropriate the language of the interaction as their own” (Ohta 2000 p.51).

Scaffolding in the language classroom is related to Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of

Proximal Development (henceforth ZPD) which suggests that this model “is the

difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with the

help of the teacher” (Wisniewska 2010 p.18). Additionally, as mentioned previously

by Harris (2007), the scaffolding of language for learners can occur between the

learners themselves. Nonetheless, Wisniewska (2010) notes that a particular role for a

teacher, although in a one-to-one learning context, which complements the theory of

ZPD, is that of a ‘conversation partner’ (p.18-20). However, there are challenges with

the sociocultural opinion of interactional language acquisition and this is demonstrated

below:

a) “Some individuals are able to achieve a relatively advanced level of

L2 proficiency without the benefit of any interpersonal




communication or opportunity to negotiate meaning in the language

with others.”

b) “Some individuals engage in extensive interaction with speakers of

another language without learning that language to any significant

degree.”

(Saville-Troike 2006 p.116)

The examples above might be related to the culture and previous learning experience

for particular language learners. Ellis (1996) suggests that there are several teacher

roles expected by language learners and that the cultural appropriacy of learning

relates to correct selection of teaching methods and approaches (p.213-214).

Furthermore, interaction has to be culturally appropriate for the target learner

otherwise the development of motivation or ‘communicative competence’ would be

less successful (Ellis 1996 p.213-218).

Materials Light

The second tenet for Dogme ELT is the emphasis on ‘materials light’ which suggests

that textbooks are primarily used to “promote the delivery and consumption of

‘grammar McNuggets’” (Meddings & Thornbury 2009 p.12) with, to some degree, “an

over-reliance on [imported] materials” (Thornbury & Meddings 2003 p.15) by

language teachers. However, the term ‘materials light’ is something that is largely

related to the banishment of coursebooks from the ELT classroom (Meddings &

Thornbury 2009 p.11-16). Nevertheless, within “Teaching Unplugged” (2009), there

is no explicit explanation of the term ‘materials’ yet Thornbury (2006) defines the

term ‘materials’ as the inclusion of “coursebooks, workbooks, visual aids, charts,

board games, Cuisenaire rods, audio and video materials, as well as the software that

is run by computers, data projectors and interactive whiteboards” (ibid p.127). One

major criticism regarding an over-emphasis of materials with language learners is

highlighted below:

“Drumming material in through practice activities runs the risk that

all the compliant and talented learners will do is learn to produce




what the teacher wants, under classroom conditions, and that such

learning may not truly take root”.

(Skehan 2002 p.290)

Essentially, materials, particularly coursebooks, could hinder the possibility and

potential to focus, with learners, on exploratory teaching. Thus, the paradigm with

materials should be re-focused towards the learners with less emphasis on top-down

grammar based lessons. However, Meddings & Thornbury (2009) are suggesting that

they are not ‘anti-materials’ but they reject materials which appear unconventional

towards the other principles of Dogme ELT. Materials which could support a

‘conversation driven’ principle, with a focus on ‘emergent language’, could include

prompts, role cards or other suitable materials which promote “talk-mediated learning

opportunities that are so crucial for learning” (Meddings & Thornbury 2009 p.12).

Nevertheless, coursebooks essentially, whether preferred or not, represents “the visible

heart of any ELT programme” (Sheldon 1988 p.238). It is recognised that

coursebooks provide teachers with material which can be used if there are time

constraints and the coursebooks can foster ‘unit-by-unit’ progression as well as provide

materials for learners to review at a later date (Harmer 2007 p.181). Conversely, there

are a number of reservations with the use of coursebooks which include prescribing

and imposing specific learning styles on the students in class (Harmer 2007 p.

181-182). Furthermore, coursebooks “give little opportunity or encouragement to

adapt … to the needs, wants, personalities, or styles of the learners or

teachers” (Tomlinson et al 2001 p.83). Hall (2011) also noted that if decisions are

solely based on coursebooks, rather than decision based solely on the learners,

teachers could become ‘de-skilled’ (p.214). Thus, this raises the question: “What

material supports Dogme ELT?”

Learner-Based Teaching

Learner-based teaching proposes methods to avoid over-dependence with coursebooks

(Cambell & Kryszewska 1992 p.7). It is proposed, that materials include the learners,

pens, papers as well as classroom furniture (Cambell & Kryszewska 1992 p.7). This




assertion is related to a ‘materials light’ principle of Dogme ELT, whereby the

classroom is “simply a room with a few chairs, a blackboard, a teacher and some

learners” (Meddings & Thornbury 2009, p.12). Essentially, both Dogme ELT and

learner-based teaching incorporate more humanistic aspects of language acquisition:

providing learners with ‘space’ to interact and communicate in language. For

example, humanistic teaching “engages the whole person, including the emotions and

feelings … as well as linguistic knowledge and behavioral [sic] skills” (Richards &

Rodgers 2001 p.90). Cadorath & Harris (1998) noted the importance to provide

learner space to allow conversation to flourish in the classroom with unplanned and

unpredicted interactions. Notwithstanding, materials which support the principles of

Dogme ELT are suggested as newspapers, magazines, objects, photos as well as text

messages (Meddings & Thornbury 2009 p.48-59). All these materials, it is proposed,

provide stimuli to prompt ‘real-life’ conversation among learners and teachers.

However, are there any differences between learner-based teaching and a learner-

centred curriculum? Interestingly, teachers preparing materials and planning lessons

based upon the learners’ communicative goals is one of the key proponents of, not just

learner-based teaching, but a principle of a learner-centred curriculum (Nunan 1988 p.

62). With learner-responsive material, students would expect material to support

“what they need to be able to do outside [of the classroom]” (Nunan 1988 p.99) with

some respect towards authenticity. It is recognised that “authentic materials motivate

learners because they are intrinsically more interesting” (Peacock 1997 p.144).

However, as previously highlighted with CLT and TBL, if one imports authentic

material away from their context it could become unauthentic and inappropriate for

learners. In some respects, Dogme ELT is seeking to support ‘learner authenticity’

with material that is recognised by students so that it relates “to his [or her] interests,

background knowledge and experience, and through these, stimulate genuine

communication” (Nunan 1988 p.102). Yet, it must be recognised, with a learner-

centred curriculum as well as Dogme ELT, that various materials are incorporated to

prompt genuine conversation and develop natural language that emerges with

classroom interaction. Nonetheless, although one of the principles of Dogme ELT

proposes a ‘materials light’ emphasis, appropriate materials, in some form or other,

can offer learners the possibility to prompt and encourage natural conversation.




Emergent Language

The third and final tenet of Dogme ELT is regarded as a focus on ‘emergent language’.

However, what does ‘emergent language’ mean? When considering the distinction

between traditional grammar-based methods and approaches compared to more recent

communicative-based methods (such as the CLT), grammar accuracy practice, such as

drills and repetition, have been replaced by fluency based activities (Richards 2006 p.

8). With a fluency-first approach to language acquisition, ‘emergent language’ is

associated with usage-based descriptions of second language acquisition and

connectionism (Thornbury 2006 p.47-48 & p.235). It is noted that “emergentism is an

alternative to both nativism and behaviourism and a subtle combination of the

two” (Owens 2008 p.51), whereby “language is an emergent phenomenon, driven by

massive exposure and use” (Meddings & Thornbury 2009 p.19). Obviously, critics

raise concerns with ‘emergent language’ based upon an apparent lack of structure or

predictable language learning (Meddings & Thornbury p.18). However, EFL teachers

should note that traditional language lessons, which follow a grammar-based syllabus,

are not sufficient enough for language learners to gain appropriate proficiency in

English (van Lier 1996 p.42). Nonetheless, to promote ‘emergent language’ it is

necessary to relate Vygotsky’s ZPD theory of scaffolding with language learning

(Thornbury 2001 p.53-55). With this in mind, we can see how ‘emergent language’

and a ‘conversation driven’ approach to Dogme ELT are closely related, with both

basic principles complementing one another. Nonetheless, there is a suggestion by

Meddings & Thornbury (2009) that responsive teaching, during natural classroom

interaction, provides further opportunities for teachers to scaffold ‘emergent

language’ as well as offers possibilities for learners to ‘notice’ language. The role of

‘noticing’ in language learning offers learners the opportunity to distinguish between

the “current state of their developing linguistic system, as realized in their output, and

the target language system” (Thornbury 1997 p.326). For example, teachers could

incorporate a variety of techniques to increase learner ‘noticing’ opportunities such as

drilling, dictation, restructuring or concordance exercises (Thornbury 2006 p.144).




Lesson IdeasIdeas to develop, support and incorporate Dogme ELT in the classroom.

These ideas have been developed and created over my period of teaching and would

like to thank everyone that has contributed or inspired me to develop these ideas. The

lesson plans below require very little preparation, limited material, prompt

conversation as well as offer opportunities to develop and scaffold emergent language.

The lesson ideas suggested are developed to promote conversation, natural interaction

as well as developing rapport. It offers students and teachers the opportunity to share

experiences and develop learner confidence during genuine conversation.




Lesson Idea 1: Why are they so Tired?

Materials Required: Just some learners in the classroom, a whiteboard and a pen.

Length of Lesson: This lesson can run as little as 10 minutes. However, should

students be keen, it could last much longer.

Level of Learners: This lesson is suitable for any level of learners.

Phrases: “I’m tired because ...”, “Last night, my neighbour was ...” (language

associated with reasoning), “You should ...”, “You could ...” (phrases associated with

suggestions).

Language: Words associated with tiredness: shattered, exhausted, weary, etc.

Please Note: Take care to give the tired learner space and see if they are happy to be

used as an example in the classroom.

Staging: The best way to incorporate this lesson is react to any learners that are tired

and get other learners to think why this student is feeling rather weary. Write down

their ideas why the student could be tired on the whiteboard. Next write down other

words to describe tiredness and try to elicit why the student is tired. Get students to

offer suggestions and correct or scaffold language when required.

TIREDNESS IN THE CLASSROOM

We have all been there, one student is rather tired or unable to follow the lesson, but have you ever used situations to your advantage? For example, I once had a student that looked incredibly tired in class and had trouble keeping up with the class. I decided to enquire with the class why she was looking tired. She explained that she had trouble with her neighbour and was kept up till late. We looked at language associated with nuisance neighbours as well as grammar related to suggestions.




Lesson Idea 2: An Accident Waiting to Happen

Materials Required: Just some learners in the classroom, a whiteboard and a pen.

Length of Lesson: This lesson can run as long as 60 minutes.


Phrases: “A few years ago, ...” , “When I was young, ...”, “I remember when I was out ...” (phrases associated with telling stories).

Language: Words associated with accidents: dislocated shoulder, broken leg, twisted ankle, etc.

Staging: In the classroom, tell students that you are going to tell a story about an accident that happened to yourself when you were young. The teacher could then decide to get students to rewrite the story (a traditional dictogloss activity) or proceed and get learners to share their accidents with a partner. When students are sharing their experiences, monitor and note any language which is suitable and any which require scaffolding. Once language has been scaffolded and corrected, learners could then retell their story (or their partners’ story) to the class to practice reformulation.

DESCRIBING PAST ACCIDENTS

Everyone has a story to tell and I have found that students are very keen to share their experiences particularly about previous accidents. Furthermore, it seems that most teachers and learners have experienced the hospital in one way or another. This activity is a great chance to develop rapport with learners.




Lesson Idea 3: What’s Your Mobile Phone?

Materials Required: Learners and any mobile phones they bring into class, a whiteboard and a pen.

Length of Lesson: This lesson can run as long as 45 minutes.


Phrases: “My mobile can ...” , “My mobile can’t ...”, “This is my first/second/third mobile phone”: phrases used to discuss, compare and describe personal mobile phones.

Language: Words associated with mobile phones: strong signal, weak signal, 3G phone, etc.

Staging: In the classroom, show students your mobile phone and ask what sort of features it may have if any (MP3 player, Internet browser, etc). Ask students to get their mobile phones (if they have any) and to discuss about their mobile phone (features, when it was bought, etc). Perhaps write up a number of short question forms on the board to prompt their conversation such as: When/bought? How often/use? etc. Monitor the class and make a note of any good or poor phrases/sentences for scaffolding. As a final activity, get students to reorder the mobile phones from good to poor and discuss why they believe that is the case.

DESCRIBING PERSONAL OBJECTS

Almost all learners that I have taught (young learners or adults) have a mobile phone. It is natural for people to compare their mobile phone, the features as well as chat about these wonderful devices. These days, learners have the opportunity to use smartphones and they have access to the Internet, music as well as a range of other services that could be exploited in the classroom.




Lesson Idea 4: What Happened Next?

Materials Required: Some learners, a whiteboard, write up a small uncompleted story

and a board marker.

Length of Lesson: Dependent upon personal circumstances and the number of learners in the classroom, the lesson can run for as long as an hour.

Level of Learners: This lesson is suitable for Pre-Intermediate learners or above.

Phrases: Use of narrative tenses: “I was travelling in the taxi when ...” , “I checked in to get my passport but ...”, “I had packed everything the night before ...”.

Language: Depending upon the story, language will emerge given the situation. For example, my personal story revolves around travelling by aircraft so some lexis could be related to this: check-in, departure, gate, security, etc.

Staging: Advise students that you are going to tell them a story that happened recently and that you are going to read the short-story once and that they have to listen. Once you have told the story get students to write down any phrases, collocations, or vocabulary that they remember from your story. Pair students up to compare language. Retell the story again and this time students can make a note (typical dictogloss) and then students recreate the story in their own words. Again different groups of students compare their stories, after which you provide the original story. Students discuss what they think happened next. Finally tell them what happened.

PREDICTING THE NEXT STAGE OF THE STORY

I got the idea of this lesson through a personal situation that occurred during my flight to Romania (collecting my son’s passport instead of my own). It is important to tell a personal story (or perhaps one that could be tailored for the classroom) to encourage students to discuss what they believe happened next.




Lesson Idea 5: Most Memorable Holiday

Materials Required: Learners, pens and a whiteboard.

Length of Lesson: This lesson activity could last for as long as 60 minutes.

Level of Learners: This lesson is suitable for all levels of language learners.

Phrases: Phrases include describing holidays with the narrative tense: “When I was young, I went to ...”, “I remember when my parents took me to ...”, etc.

Language: Language related to holiday activities: skiing, camping, etc.

Staging: Start the lesson by telling learners of a holiday that you went when you were younger. For example, when I was young I went to Switzerland for a two week skiing holiday and camped in a caravan and then travelled to the mountains in the morning. It was a wonderful holiday and the food was great. If you wish, you could get learners to do a ‘Dictogloss’ activity and get them to reformulate your story and rewrite the holiday. After your story, you could get the learners to share about their most memorable holiday. Monitor groups of learners and make a note of possible emergent language. At the end of the activity, you could learners to retell their partners’ most memorable holiday to the other learners. Note interesting language on the whiteboard.

DISCUSSING THE MOST MEMORABLE HOLIDAY

When I think about holidays, I like to reflect on holidays that I took as a child with my parents and am willing to share these experiences. If most learners are willing to share their holiday experiences, it would offer some opportunity for prompting genuine conversation.




Dogme ELT in the ClassroomA consideration of Dogme ELT, its implications and development in the future.

Conclusion of Dogme ELT

Dogme ELT appears to incorporate selective methods, approaches and techniques such

as CLT, TBL or Learner-Based Teaching with the emphasis on interaction and

communication. Meddings & Thornbury (2009) suggest that Dogme ELT “have

antecedents in other educational traditions” (p.21) which supports the assertion that

Dogme ELT incorporates the ‘best bits’ of other traditional methods, approaches and

techniques and is regarded as ‘Eclectic Teaching’. In this sense, Dogme ELT is related

to the ‘postmethod condition’ whereby it “frees teachers to see their classrooms and

students for what they are” (Canagarajah 2006 p.20) with Meddings & Thornbury

(2009) proposing “an alternative to transmission-type, teacher-led teaching” (p.21).

Naturally, the three tenets of Dogme ELT are complementary whereby a ‘conversation

driven’ lesson could develop and assist ‘emergent language’ and the emphasis of a

‘materials light’ classroom may provide teachers and learners the opportunity to focus

more on responsive and emergent conversation. Essentially, Dogme ELT is “both a

way of teaching and an overt attitude to teaching” (Hall 2011 p.40). However, Dogme

ELT is not considered innovative or regarded as a new ‘attitude to teaching’. During

the Literature Research of my dissertation, “Teaching Unplugged” is closely related to

a book called “Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy &

Authenticity” by Leo van Lier (1996) whereby the AAA (Awareness, Autonomy &

Authenticity) curriculum “allow language education to unfold in a regulated yet

creative manner” (p.5). Van Lier (1996) encourages teachers to adopt less emphasis

on pre-manufactured material and coursebooks and respond to and scaffold learning

based upon the learners within the classroom (p.181-183). Essentially, Meddings &

Thornbury (2009) have developed and redefined van Lier’s (1996) assertion of an

AAA curriculum through their development of “Teaching Unplugged” with various

ideas for lessons. When comparing both books by Meddings & Thornbury (2009)

with Van Lier (1996), they appear very similar and initially it appears that “Teaching




Unplugged” has been written in an ‘easy to digest’ format for English language

teachers to complement the book published by van Lier (1996).

Figure 22: Scott Thornbury's Reply on Twitter (Thornbury 2011)

When approaching Scott Thornbury via Twitter (www.twitter.com), he suggested that

“van Lier’s book was an important influence” (Thornbury 2011) in the development of

Dogme ELT. Nonetheless, it is beyond the scope of this study to expand on “Teaching

Unplugged” (2009) reinventing van Lier’s (1996) suggestion for an AAA curriculum,

as this study has focused solely on the three underlying principles of Dogme ELT.

However, it appears the similarity with the book published by van Lier (1996) that

Dogme ELT has reinvented the ‘pedagogical wheel’.

Applications & Implications for English Language Teaching

Dogme ELT, as highlighted within the Literature Review, is considered to be the

incorporation of various methods, approaches and techniques such as TBL, CLT or the

Learner-based curriculum. As Dogme ELT employs various EFL methods, approaches

and techniques, teachers who might be unaware of teaching unplugged are, as

confirmed by primary research, unknowingly incorporate aspects of Dogme ELT.

Nevertheless, teacher participants suggested that a balance between Dogme ELT (also

a form of Eclectic Teaching) with more traditional, yet structured, forms of teaching.

For example, there is a constant struggle between satisfying student demand with

material (as highlighted within the Student Surveys) and respecting student-to-student


http://www.twitter.com

http://www.twitter.com



conversation. Thus, Dogme ELT could be considered suitable depending upon the

situation in the classroom and that teachers should offer learners the opportunity for a

Balanced Approach. A Balanced Approach to teaching would offer EFL teachers the

best of both worlds: the prospect of structured lessons or the opportunity to

incorporate more exploratory or experimental teaching techniques, dependent upon

classroom expectations. For example, some students and teachers that participated in

the survey indicated mixed opinions: that they preferred structured lessons or less

structured lessons. However, if an unexpected or unpredicted event arose in the

classroom, the teacher could take advantage of possible learning opportunities such as

‘emergent language’ or a conversation that has arisen from the learners. Conversely, if

exploratory teaching and learning is unsuccessful, the teacher could ‘guide’ the class

towards more structured and pre-planned activities. Essentially, a Balanced Approach

to teaching would respond to the learners within the classroom and offer Eclectic

Teaching, more Structured Teaching or a combination of both techniques.




FURTHER READING

Alden, E. (2009) ‘From ZPD to ZMD’. English Teaching Professional, Issue 61, pg.17-18.

Borg, S. (2009) ‘English Language Teachers’ Conceptions of Research’. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), pg.358-388.

Brown, J. D. (1988) Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D. & Rodgers, T. S. (2002) Doing Second Language Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cadorath, J. & Harris, S. (1998) ‘Unplanned classroom language and teacher training’. ELT Journal, 52(3), pg.188-196.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 3rd Edition (2008). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, C. & Kryszewska, H. (1992) Learner-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2006) ‘TESOL at Forty: What Are The Issues?’. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), p.9-34.

Center for Applied Linguistics (1993) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction And Sample Activities. Available from: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/gallow01.html (accessed 18 July 2011).

Dalke, A., Cassidy, K., Grobstein, P. & Blank, D. (2007) ‘Emergent Pedagogy: Learning to Enjoy the Uncontrollable and Make it Productive’. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), pg.111-130.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Handbook of qualitative research 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, in Richards, K (2009) ‘Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000’. Language Teaching, 42(2), pg.147-180.

Dörnyei, Z. (2010) Questionnaires in Second Language Research 2nd Edition. Abingdon: Routledge.

Duranti, A. (2001) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Ellis, G. (1996) ‘How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach?’. ELT Journal, 50(3), pg.213-218.

Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2000) ‘Task-based research and language pedagogy’. Language Teaching Research 4(3), pg.193-220.

Farrington, O. (1981) ‘The ‘Conversation Class’’. ELT Journal, XXXV(3), pg.241-243.

Hall, G. (2011) Exploring English Language Teaching. Abingdon: Routledge.

Harmer, J. (2003) ‘Popular culture, methods, and context’. ELT Journal, 57(3), pg.288-294.

Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Language Teaching 4th Edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Harris, S. T. (2007) ‘Scaffolding’. English Teaching Professional, Issue 51, pg.17-19.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1971) ‘On Communicative Competence’ in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics quoted in Savignon, S. J. (2002) Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Concepts and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2004) ‘The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions’. ELT Journal, 58(4), pg.319-326.

Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2003) Dogme still able to divide ELT. London: Guardian News a n d M e d i a L i m i t e d . Av a i l a b l e f r o m : www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/tefl.lukemeddings (accessed 11 July 2011).

Meddings, L. & Thornbury, S. (2009) Teaching Unplugged. Surrey: DELTA Publishing.

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories 2nd Edition. London: Hodder Education.


http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/gallow01.html




http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/apr/17/tefl.lukemeddings






Nitta, R. & Gardner, S. (2005) ‘Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks’. ELT Journal, 59(1), pg.3-13.

Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2000), ‘Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar’, in Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pg.51-78.

Owens Jr., R. E. (2008) Language Development: An Introduction. London: Pearson.

Richards, J. C. (2006) Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. (2009) ‘Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000’.

Language Teaching, 42(2), pg.147-180.Saunders, M, Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business Students 3rd Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

S a v i g n o n , S . J . ( 2 0 0 2 ) I n t e r p re t i n g Communicative Language Teaching: Concepts and Concerns in Teacher Education. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Savignon, S. J. & Berns, M. S. (1983) Communicative Language Teaching: Where Are We G o i n g ? Av a i l a b l e f r o m : h t t p : / /www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED278226.pdf (accessed 19 July 2011).

Sayer, P (2005) ‘An intensive approach to building conversation skills’. ELT Journal, 59(1), pg. 14-22.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006) Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scrivener, J. (2011) Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide to English Language Teaching 3rd Edition. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Senior, R. (2008) ‘Developing rapport’. English Teaching Professional, Issue 54, pg.4-6.

Skehan, P. (2002) ‘A non-marginal role for tasks’. ELT Journal, 56(3), pg.289-295.

Sketchley, M. (2010) “Teaching Unplugged” – Book Rev iew. Avai lab le f rom: h t tp : / /www.eltexperiences.com/2010/12/teaching-unplugged-book-review.html (accessed 7 December 2010).

Swan, M. (1985a) ‘A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1)’. ELT Journal, 39(1), pg.2-12.

Swan, M. (1985b) ‘A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2)’. ELT Journal, 39(2), pg.76-87.

Tennant, A. (2011) ‘Viewpoints: Adrian Tennant explains why ‘authentic’ is not always ... well, authentic!’, IATEFL Voices, Issue 219, pg.13.

Thornbury, S. (2000) ‘A Dogma for EFL’. IATEFL Issues, 153, pg.2. Available from: http://www.thornburyscott.com/assets/dogma.pdf (accessed 11 July 2011).

Thornbury, S. (2001) Uncovering Grammar. Oxford: Macmillan.

Thornbury, S. (2005) How to teach speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan.

T h o r n b u r y , S . ( 2 0 1 1 ) Tw i t t e r. c o m : @thornburyscott. Thursday 1 September 2011. Ava i l ab le f rom: h t tp : / / tw i t t e r. com/#! /thornburyscott/status/109131094561001473 (accessed 1 September 2011).

Thornbury, S. & Meddings, L. (2003) ‘Dogme: A Nest of NESTS’. IATEFL Global Issues Special Interest Group, News November 2003, pg.15-19. Available from: http://gisig.iatefl.org/resources/newsletters/15/GISIGNewsletter15.pdf (accessed 11 July 2011).

Thornbury, S. & Slade, D. (2006) Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B, Dat, B, Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001) ‘EFL courses for adults’. ELT Journal, 55(1), p.80-101.

Tudor, I. (1996) Learner-centredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED278226.pdf




http://www.eltexperiences.com/2010/12/teaching-unplugged-book-review.html






http://www.thornburyscott.com/assets/dogma.pdf




http://twitter.com/#!/thornburyscott/status/109131094561001473




http://gisig.iatefl.org/resources/newsletters/15/GISIGNewsletter15.pdf






Van Lier, L (1996) Interaction in the Language C l a s s ro o m : Aw a re n e s s , A u t o n o m y & Authenticity. Harlow: Longman Group Limited.

Von Trier, L. & Vinterberg, T. (2005) ‘Dogme 95: The Vow of Chastity’, in Utterson, A. (ed.) Technology and Culture: The Film Reader. Oxon: Routledge.

Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Longman.

Wisniewska, I. (2010) Learning One-to-One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Documents

Incorporating Dogme ELT in the Classroom (Handout Version)